Mattel Toy Recall Problem of 2007Essay Preview: Mattel Toy Recall Problem of 2007Report this essayMattelThis paper will discuss the Mattel Toy recall problem of 2007. I will provide background information about Mattel Toy, Inc. I will also describe the problem creating the recall and who was responsible. Next I will state my opinion of Mattels actions in this recall situation; followed by the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders. Finally, I will explain how consumers can protect themselves from this type of hazard in the future.
Over the past 30 years there has been an ever increasing trend to outsource manufacturing to Asia. Mattel is no exception. In an attempt to reduce production costs Mattel “began shifting production to Asia in the 1980s”. (Lawrence, 2011, p. 531). Initially Mattel used outside contractors. However, concern arose over protecting the companys intellectual property. Not wanting cheap imitations of their trademark products, they soon either constructed or purchased factories in multiple Asian locations. Mattel did continue to “contract production to between 20 and 50 Chinese firms”. (Lawrence, 2011, p. 532). By 2007 about 65% of Mattel products were being manufactured in China.
The Mattel team began to work with a group of suppliers to develop a quality assurance system under which suppliers would provide testing. The company, The Mattel Group, has since produced a series of patent protection, certification, trademark and other related matters for its customers.
Mattel first began manufacturing in China for an old family company, The Chinese Company. With The Chinese Company, Mattel expanded into China with the use of new manufacturing methods and processes. In 2003 Mattel and partners developed a joint effort to test and certify Chinese food products made from Mattel, food-safe products sold at a market-wide variety of grocery stores, and food safety products manufactured by Mattel. Mattel began to introduce high quality new-market items, food-safe products made in China, and a host of innovative and innovative customer-centric products.
In 2005 Mattel was founded under the brand name of the T-Shirt. Mattel and partners made significant gains in the manufacturing industry, including the development of Mattel’s signature and original-made brands. In 2006 Mattel joined the world’s largest chain of apparel retailers, including Foy, Gap, and Columbia, to launch the US retail segment. The same year Mattel expanded into Europe as part of its new partnership with American Retailer Services. In 2008 Mattel announced plans to re-introduce the T-shirt in Canada. The T-shirt is sold separately and in individual apparel sets online, in the stores and on the online retailer StoreofAmerica.
During the year Mattel’s corporate board members met with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to discuss Mattel’s business. These meetings ended in June 2006 at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Commerce.
The United States Department of Agriculture has developed tools and practices in order to promote business growth. Mattel is a public-sector employer in the United States. Mattel has successfully brought in a significant number of skilled workers and small-business owners to expand its reach beyond the domestic manufacturing industry at home for domestic customers with innovative and innovative products.
Mattel’s company’s unique brand has been on the forefront of national and global fashion, fitness, home care, food and health and has raised over $100 million for charitable causes and programs.
The Mattel team began to work with a group of suppliers to develop a quality assurance system under which suppliers would provide testing. The company, The Mattel Group, has since produced a series of patent protection, certification, trademark and other related matters for its customers.
Mattel first began manufacturing in China for an old family company, The Chinese Company. With The Chinese Company, Mattel expanded into China with the use of new manufacturing methods and processes. In 2003 Mattel and partners developed a joint effort to test and certify Chinese food products made from Mattel, food-safe products sold at a market-wide variety of grocery stores, and food safety products manufactured by Mattel. Mattel began to introduce high quality new-market items, food-safe products made in China, and a host of innovative and innovative customer-centric products.
In 2005 Mattel was founded under the brand name of the T-Shirt. Mattel and partners made significant gains in the manufacturing industry, including the development of Mattel’s signature and original-made brands. In 2006 Mattel joined the world’s largest chain of apparel retailers, including Foy, Gap, and Columbia, to launch the US retail segment. The same year Mattel expanded into Europe as part of its new partnership with American Retailer Services. In 2008 Mattel announced plans to re-introduce the T-shirt in Canada. The T-shirt is sold separately and in individual apparel sets online, in the stores and on the online retailer StoreofAmerica.
During the year Mattel’s corporate board members met with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to discuss Mattel’s business. These meetings ended in June 2006 at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Commerce.
The United States Department of Agriculture has developed tools and practices in order to promote business growth. Mattel is a public-sector employer in the United States. Mattel has successfully brought in a significant number of skilled workers and small-business owners to expand its reach beyond the domestic manufacturing industry at home for domestic customers with innovative and innovative products.
Mattel’s company’s unique brand has been on the forefront of national and global fashion, fitness, home care, food and health and has raised over $100 million for charitable causes and programs.
In 1997, Mattel developed a set of policies and procedures for its overseas contractors and factories to follow. Unfortunately for American children these initial procedures focused primarily on the working conditions of the employees and not the product safety and inspection process. Concerned with product safety as well, Mattel implemented a program to assess product safety and quality, including specific guidelines on lead in paint. This program required “vendors to purchase paint from a list of certified suppliers or test the paint that they used to ensure compliance with the established standards…”. (Lawrence, 2011, p. 532). Unfortunately, Mattel discovered that many of its China based contractors were sub-contracting work to facilities that were not adhering to the lead paint guidelines. By August 1, 2007 Mattel began a recall of 1.5 million of its products made in China.
In an attempt to reassure the American public, Mattel released numerous public statements detailing its plan to work with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in the U.S. and other international agencies that control safety in other countries. Mattel placed large ads in many large newspapers that are circulated worldwide. These ads detailed the products being recalled, contact information to handle all consumer questions, and instructions on how to handle the recalled products. One of the many press releases issued by Mattel stated:
“Mattel has rigorous procedures, and we will continue to be vigilant and unforgiving in enforcing quality and safety. We dont want to have recalls, but we dont hesitate to take quick and effective action to correct issues as soon as weve identified them to ensure the safety of our products and the safety of children.” (Lawrence, 2011, p. 533).
The massive recalls prompted Mattel to launch an investigation. It was determined that Mattels contractors and/or their sub-contractors had used lead-based paint on the toys they were manufacturing as a way of cutting costs and improving their profits. Even though Mattel had provided its manufacturers and contractors with strict safety guidelines pertaining to lead in toys and had made inspections approving the materials they were using, many of these businesses in turn sub-contracted the work to other businesses that had not been inspected by Mattel and had done so without Mattels knowledge and permission. The investigation had also discovered that the businesses Mattel was contracting with had instructed the sub-contractors to use the paint approved by Mattel, but that those sub-contractors chose to ignore the paint requirement.
Was Mattel to blame? Ultimately I believe yes. Mattel was the corporation that contracted the work. They were the ones who chose the manufacturers to do business with. They were also the ones that had made inspections of the materials being used and set out clear guidelines to follow for the manufacturing process. But what went wrong? I believe that Mattel was naïve in their belief that these overseas manufacturers would follow the guidelines and requirements set forth by Mattel and the CPSC. I believe that the overseas businesses chose to cut corners when Mattels back was turned. These businesses did what was necessary to pass Mattels inspection and approval process; then when Mattel was comfortable and not as vigilant in its observations of the foreign production process; the overseas companies chose to sub-contract the work to cut costs and did not require the sub-contractors to follow the safety guidelines that were in place.
Did Mattel handle the 2007 recall crisis in a socially responsible manner? I do not think so. The CPSC has a key regulation that states that “companies must report a defect/recall within 24 hours of discovery”. (Mattel Recalls 2007, n.d.). Initially, however, Mattel did not do that. They first learned of the “possible lead paint contamination” on “June 8, 2007”. (Mattel Recalls 2007, n.d.). It was not until “July 26, 2007 [that] Mattel files full recall report with CPSC” and not until “September 4, 2007 [that] Mattel voluntarily recalls 850,000 toys with lead paint”. (Mattel Recalls 2007, n.d.). This clearly indicates that Mattel was not acting socially responsible. Mattel tried to defend its delayed reporting by stating that “CPSC timeline [was] unreasonable” and that it “needed to conduct an internal investigation first”. (Mattel Recalls 2007, n.d.). The CPSC, however, did not see it their way; they fined Mattel $1.1 million dollars for the violation. It is clear that Mattel was more concerned for their reputation than the safety of the American children. This was not socially responsible.
Just as I believe that Mattel did not act in a socially responsible manner, I also believe that they did not act in an ethical manner.“Business ethics is the application of general ethical ideas to business behavior. Business ethics is not a special set of ethical ideas different from ethics in general and applicable only to business. If